Group C cars grip under acceleration

Are you running 93 Spa era specific

 

Yes, so far all my tests have been there. Will move them to a twistier track next time.

 

My bad, your lap times indicate such. I’m running 2:06 with a 3 rear wing, quite sketchy. I think 5 may be more to my liking

 

Oopps

 

Back to 7 on the rear wing. Car has enough speed may as well use more wing. This was 17 laps of fuel.

 

Got into the 2:05.088, best lap, lighter car ?

 

Last night I did some laps at Kansai Classic (Suzuka), using real date and weather on a green track (April 9th 1989) to log some data to tweak the setup for going into a longer run at a grippier scenario, like I did at Spa 93. Staying at boost 40%, with no saving it consumes 3.38 Liters per lap, and the quota rule is met at 2.96 Liters per lap, a saving required of 14%, so that boost value stays correct at this track for the engine we currently have. With no saving, I hit a string of 1:54s. Which shocked me, because it's 4 seconds faster than race laptimes, and just one off their Q times...

I checked layout changes overtime, and besides the 130R being different, Dunlop has been reprofiled, and the chicane, even if used the old one, still comes earlier than the original one that was used until 1990. This means it's tougher to run comparisons, because...how many seconds has the track sped up with these changes? 1.5s? 2? 3? Will complete the test anyway, but not sure how useful will this data set be.

Also checked Donington, and besides a small reprofile on the chicane that would be worth some tenths, the track is pretty much the same. To compound matters, I found an excellent video of somebody testing the C9 for some laps at this very track, so we have more references to run comparisons, and that would be a more useful test I reckon!

 

it seems most the c9 recent video post Group C era the drivers are very conservative. I think their instructed to not bin the iconic car.

Here’s a Nissan in a SVRA and it’s short but he’s getting with the show, pushing it hard


https://youtu.be/uLxEgPvV6Ao

 

I wouldn't take this as a reference to be honest, the driver here even mentions in the video description that he is in the car for the first time, is not consistent with lines, gear selections or braking and so on.
He mentions the car is surprisignly easy to control though, comparable to a modern LMP minus the driving aids, which I guess has relevance as he seems to be knowledgeable in racecars.

 

I concur. Also, I’ve never seen reference to boost down too 40. I think Gabriel is doing so to match the fuel burning per lap. I’m pretty happy with the C9, but not at all with the 962. The vette, as much as a vette fan I am, that’s more of a fantasy car. I need to put some time in the Nissan. I should start a GT1 thread, the Porsche was/is pretty bland

 

Definitely not an absolute reference, he also won't push like Schlesser/Baldi/Mass on 1989, and tyres won't be the same either. It's something though, and the comments on the driveability that you mention did catch my attention though.

Something interesting: best lap on the video is 1s faster than the race record at Domington 89.

 

Must be tire related, much more grip. Track the same as 89?

 

Maybe also due to the type of asphalt that is used now too?

 

I think to be close on tire softness to 89 they use Avon tires, if not then newer Goodyears would have better grip. Tarmac, finer material , better application then 89 if these tracks have recently been repaved.

 

Apparently they have just finished a complete resurface and I think the one before that was 2003/4 from a quick bit of googling.

 

Slightly faster chicane, but difference is quite small IMO. Compare to this:

The biggest difference is curbs being taller, so for better comparisons I must exercise constraint and try to not use them at all. You can see on this rather short footage that they either avoid curbs or just slightly bite them:

 

Speaking of curbs. 1993 Spa are huge, touching one too much and can be race over

 

And the curbs at the bus stop were flattened in 1992, so they used to be even worse!

 

Continuing my tests, I took on Suzuka with a revised race setup. Fuel consumption went a tad up but I was still in the 20% range of meeting the fuel quota. I had to modify the date in game to one month later, because when I removed real weather, track temperature dropped to 5 ºC. So set the date at 9/5/89, medium clouds, and got a +30ºC track with medium grip preset. Good!

After a few laps burning fuel and getting the tyres into a window, I started setting a string of 1:53s, with the best lap a 53.0. As a reference, the best C9 laps of 1989 here were a 53.4 in Qualy (pole was a 50.6 by the Toyota 89C-V), and 58.0 in Race (fastest lap in race was a 57.5 by the Jaguar XJR-9). Now, we know that the track has changed, and even with the moto layout chicane that is further up the road, there are significant other changes to the whole track that make it faster, and it's tough to quantify by how much. I'm going to suppose, and it's just a guesstimate, that it's 3 seconds faster than what it was in 1989. It would put the race laptimes at 2s faster than real life records, and that is, in my books, an acceptable range.

The most important thing I reckon, is how the thing handled. And I tell you, it was not easy. With hindsight, Spa Francorchamps makes things look easier than they actually are. Even with its older layout and punishing curbs, the challenge of pounding consistent laps is child's play compared to Suzuka. The mild oversteer is much more pronounced, and it felt like the rear wing at 7 was close to not being enough. It's still fast because the car is quite pointy but controllable if you are aware of what's happening, but it's not easy nor planted.

Decided to go into qualy trim to measure how much performance did it gain. So I took fuel out of the tank to be able to do an outlap plus two hotlaps, fitted soft tyres, closed radiator by 10%, brake ducts by 5%, maxed boost and off I went. The car was now a truly handful, and it punctuated the problems seen at race trim. Maxing rear wing was not enough, I had to reverse spring rates to default values to have a chance to push it on the slower corners because it just wanted to loop around. With those changes, I was able to survive, and my best lap (which was not close to perfect by any means) was a 49.8. I reckon there is between half and a full second on the table, driving to the best of my ability, as I believe that my race laps were done at a higher standard. As things stand, there was a 3.2 seconds gain between Q and R trims, and on the real thing it was a 4.4 gain. Not bad considering that I believe my Q runs can be better. The engine is producing close to 850 HP at full boost, like stated on the car selection UI.

I then moved to Donington Park with the Suzuka Race Setup, and threw some laps. I always considered this track, on every single game I drove on it, as an extremely treacherous one: it seems very simple but it's actually quite hard when pushing, being very simple to overshoot the limits and make lots of mistakes, tough to stay consistent when pushing. Which also makes for quite a good playground to test driveability of a racecar, as it does not have space for leg stretching.

I started as usual, on real date (3/9/89), real weather, default progressing track. As expected then, the car stayed a handful, maybe not as much as Suzuka, but it was not easy, surprisingly wanting to get away from my hands at the drop of Craner Curves, running towards the Old Hairpin. Fuel consumption was also higher than expected, averaging 2.5 Liters per lap, while the fuel quota demands a 2.05 Liter per lap number, meaning the saving is right on the 20% number. Fighting a rather loose car, and restraining myself to not use a lot of curbs, just biting the outer edges, to have a better comparison against the 1989 track, I set a string of 23s, one second faster than the best race laptimes of the actual race. Coincidentally, roughly the same laptime from the video I posted before, but remember: I'm just using 40% boost, 685 HP. I asked on the comments what boost he was using, and while he didn't recall exactly, the number of around 900 HP seemed on the mark to him. I reckon he was using around 1 bar of turbo pressure, and enjoying power output that is beyond what's possible in game at the moment.

I have the setup changes ready for a longer run at Donington on a grippier scenario as with the previous tracks, so I can conclude this phase of testing. At the moment, my impressions are that this car could be much better by restraining some setup options (I can trial them by limiting the front downforce with either reducing front value and/or raising the front end ride height, I also believe that an understeering car should bring fuel consumption numbers down) and having an engine that produces actual 1989 values; the performance we have from the power plant in game matches 1988 specs. The end result should be a car that is more drivable at high speeds, yet trickier on the low speed zones. Laptimes I reckon, will stay faster than real life, due to the C9 sharing tyres with the Porsche 962, which are better than the ones this car had in 1989. It's something that I would like for Reiza to tackle on at some point, specially given that it's something modders, for the moment, cannot do, and are stuck with the rubbers that the devs provide.

I will say that, as things stand, when the car has the right amount of high speed understeer in the setup, it's a quite believable experience in my books. I'm enjoying myself driving this thing, and that's what truly matters. All this stuff and long posts are just a search for refinement possibilities.

 

I guess this is the wrong version in here